6 ms·

Wow. I do not believe changes to terms after purchase should be allowed unless required by law. We need a lemon-like law for consumer electronics. Also, I bel

by dvdhnt 5y ago

Wow. I do not believe changes to terms after purchase should be allowed unless required by law. We need a lemon-like law for consumer electronics. Also, I believe it is important to not buy connected devices and appliances that are not entertainment purposes only. I’d rather pay $200 extra for a dumb tv that will last be 10 years and guaranteed to not start showing me ads in the menu screen someday.

notrealpersonq 5y ago
I really doubt that they're NOT already gathering data as if I accepted the policy. The guy I called said I'm the only person to complain about this. So I don't expect much to change. Yeah I'm not sure what the solution is. Maybe, I'm naive but I never expected this. I know better now. Regarding the smart t thing, I 100% agree, my vizio smart tv started getting ads on startup that I need to manually exit out of.
- NullPrefix 5y ago
  >The guy I called said I'm the only person to complain about this. You do understand that this is a standard corporate gaslight?
  - notrealpersonq 5y ago
    Probably is, but most of my friends who aren't in tech told me I'm too "extra/petty" for calling.
jen20 5y ago
I’m in the market for a TV currently, and have found (in the US) that it doesn’t matter how much extra I’d be willing to pay for a dumb TV, there just aren’t any beyond super low-end ones. Any pointers to some would be much appreciated!
- neltnerb 5y ago
  I got a TV that wishes it were smart. I just refused to accept the ToS upon turning it on, never connected it to the wifi, and use an HDMI cable instead. To this day if I accidentally click the wrong input button it asks me to accept the ToS. But since I haven't and won't accept them at least that's something. Though I think it should be extremely illegal to change the terms of service for an appliance. Software maybe, a service maybe, but not a washing machine or TV! What are you supposed to do if you disagree, try to return it 3 years after purchase? Will the manufacturer pay for you to spend your time packing it up to send back to them for a full refund (of purchase price)? Of course not. The warranty and return periods are up, you have no choices.
  - notrealpersonq 5y ago
    This is the heart of the question. My return period is long past. And it's a pretty expensive device. In my mind: I purchased the washer/dryer with these specific features in mind. Now I no longer have access to what I bought and I'm being locked out of using these features unless I accept the new terms.
    - cosmotic 5y ago
      Their official return window may have passed, but that doesn't mean you can't return now that they have changed the terms of the sale.
  - mnw21cam 5y ago
    Nonsense. Sale of goods act 1979, and the consumer rights act 2015. If the terms of service are acceptable to you at the time you buy, but then they are changed to be unacceptable, then the device is not fit for purpose by design, and you can claim a full refund. There is no set time limit on this. Take them to the small claims court if they refuse.
    - neltnerb 5y ago
      ... have you ever tried to actually do this? On top of having to deal with, at minimum, going out and buying a new washer drier on my own dime until I win said court case, there's no guarantee you'd win (it's the app ToS, not literally the appliance, correct?) nor that it would ever compensate for your time spent dealing with it. Sure, you might have a good case, but when you're working full time and have a family this is not a good use of your time. It requires a level of committment that I shouldn't have to have in order to fix a unilateral change to the terms I agree to when actually making a literally $2k+ purchase. I can't just float them a loan for $2k to buy replacement equipment while suing them.
buu700 5y ago
We need a lemon-like law for consumer electronics. I wonder how this should apply to planned obsolescence of devices like smartphones. On one hand, it's obscene that manufacturers expect us to routinely spend ~$1k on a device that will in the best case scenario last for three years. There's no inherent reason that a flagship Samsung from 2017 shouldn't be perfectly serviceable today, and likewise for a Pixel 6 or iPhone 13 in 2030. However, the discontinuation of security updates makes it so that for all practical purposes they are not. On the other hand, we can't exactly compel speech or labor. It would be one thing if there were a kill switch triggered after N years, but in this case the obsolescence isn't caused by an active update, rather a lack thereof. Here's a possible middle ground: 1. Block device manufacturers from arbitrarily deprecating hardware. We can't compel the release of new software, but we can block the release of new software. Require manufacturers to submit a filing with request for approval before the release of any new mobile OS update, which must include an exhaustive list of all supported devices. In the event that a device is dropped from the list in a subsequent filing, it must be explained to the satisfaction of regulators that a specific hardware limitation makes continued support for the device problematic or impractical. Given approval to drop support for a device from an OS release, there would be no obligation on the manufacturer to backport security updates to prior releases. 2. Block component manufacturers from arbitrarily deprecating hardware. Any hardware included in a publicly available consumer electronic device must have its manufacturer commit to providing up-to-date driver software with support for the latest OS for the lifetime of the device. Failure to provide this within a certain time frame (say, three months) following the request of a device manufacturer would open them up to a lawsuit, wherein they could be compelled to publish the most recent release of the driver as open source / public domain. #1 would provide the incentive for each device manufacturer to proactively enforce this, as their entire product roadmap would be effectively frozen if they allowed component manufacturers to drag their feet. 3. Ban irreversible bootloader locking in new devices. Maybe an initial bootloader lock would be acceptable, but power users should have some way to override the lock and install a custom ROM without relying on vulnerabilities in the software.
- ipaddr 5y ago
  Your phone still works fine. Those security patches not being installed means probably very little.

by dvdhnt 5y ago

notrealpersonq 5y ago

I really doubt that they're NOT already gathering data as if I accepted the policy. The guy I called said I'm the only person to complain about this. So I don't expect much to change. Yeah I'm not sure what the solution is. Maybe, I'm naive but I never expected this. I know better now. Regarding the smart t thing, I 100% agree, my vizio smart tv started getting ads on startup that I need to manually exit out of.

NullPrefix 5y ago
>The guy I called said I'm the only person to complain about this. You do understand that this is a standard corporate gaslight?
- notrealpersonq 5y ago
  Probably is, but most of my friends who aren't in tech told me I'm too "extra/petty" for calling.

jen20 5y ago

I’m in the market for a TV currently, and have found (in the US) that it doesn’t matter how much extra I’d be willing to pay for a dumb TV, there just aren’t any beyond super low-end ones. Any pointers to some would be much appreciated!

neltnerb 5y ago
I got a TV that wishes it were smart. I just refused to accept the ToS upon turning it on, never connected it to the wifi, and use an HDMI cable instead. To this day if I accidentally click the wrong input button it asks me to accept the ToS. But since I haven't and won't accept them at least that's something. Though I think it should be extremely illegal to change the terms of service for an appliance. Software maybe, a service maybe, but not a washing machine or TV! What are you supposed to do if you disagree, try to return it 3 years after purchase? Will the manufacturer pay for you to spend your time packing it up to send back to them for a full refund (of purchase price)? Of course not. The warranty and return periods are up, you have no choices.
- notrealpersonq 5y ago
  This is the heart of the question. My return period is long past. And it's a pretty expensive device. In my mind: I purchased the washer/dryer with these specific features in mind. Now I no longer have access to what I bought and I'm being locked out of using these features unless I accept the new terms.
  - cosmotic 5y ago
    Their official return window may have passed, but that doesn't mean you can't return now that they have changed the terms of the sale.
- mnw21cam 5y ago
  Nonsense. Sale of goods act 1979, and the consumer rights act 2015. If the terms of service are acceptable to you at the time you buy, but then they are changed to be unacceptable, then the device is not fit for purpose by design, and you can claim a full refund. There is no set time limit on this. Take them to the small claims court if they refuse.
  - neltnerb 5y ago
    ... have you ever tried to actually do this? On top of having to deal with, at minimum, going out and buying a new washer drier on my own dime until I win said court case, there's no guarantee you'd win (it's the app ToS, not literally the appliance, correct?) nor that it would ever compensate for your time spent dealing with it. Sure, you might have a good case, but when you're working full time and have a family this is not a good use of your time. It requires a level of committment that I shouldn't have to have in order to fix a unilateral change to the terms I agree to when actually making a literally $2k+ purchase. I can't just float them a loan for $2k to buy replacement equipment while suing them.

buu700 5y ago

We need a lemon-like law for consumer electronics. I wonder how this should apply to planned obsolescence of devices like smartphones. On one hand, it's obscene that manufacturers expect us to routinely spend ~$1k on a device that will in the best case scenario last for three years. There's no inherent reason that a flagship Samsung from 2017 shouldn't be perfectly serviceable today, and likewise for a Pixel 6 or iPhone 13 in 2030. However, the discontinuation of security updates makes it so that for all practical purposes they are not. On the other hand, we can't exactly compel speech or labor. It would be one thing if there were a kill switch triggered after N years, but in this case the obsolescence isn't caused by an active update, rather a lack thereof. Here's a possible middle ground: 1. Block device manufacturers from arbitrarily deprecating hardware. We can't compel the release of new software, but we can block the release of new software. Require manufacturers to submit a filing with request for approval before the release of any new mobile OS update, which must include an exhaustive list of all supported devices. In the event that a device is dropped from the list in a subsequent filing, it must be explained to the satisfaction of regulators that a specific hardware limitation makes continued support for the device problematic or impractical. Given approval to drop support for a device from an OS release, there would be no obligation on the manufacturer to backport security updates to prior releases. 2. Block component manufacturers from arbitrarily deprecating hardware. Any hardware included in a publicly available consumer electronic device must have its manufacturer commit to providing up-to-date driver software with support for the latest OS for the lifetime of the device. Failure to provide this within a certain time frame (say, three months) following the request of a device manufacturer would open them up to a lawsuit, wherein they could be compelled to publish the most recent release of the driver as open source / public domain. #1 would provide the incentive for each device manufacturer to proactively enforce this, as their entire product roadmap would be effectively frozen if they allowed component manufacturers to drag their feet. 3. Ban irreversible bootloader locking in new devices. Maybe an initial bootloader lock would be acceptable, but power users should have some way to override the lock and install a custom ROM without relying on vulnerabilities in the software.

ipaddr 5y ago
Your phone still works fine. Those security patches not being installed means probably very little.